It's odd to take paramatha sacca as a given when comparing the suttas and the abhidhamma, as that discussion seems to do. I find the abhidhamma's premise that the suttas are in conventional language while it itself is in ultimate language to be woefully unsupported.

I see these abhidhammas as being records of the sorts of discussions Buddhist virtuosos were having amongst themselves as time went on. They respond to context, and in this differ little from any book on the Dhamma which is trying to explain it for a particular audience in a different space-time matrix than the specifically 'Nikayan' worldview.

"And how is it, bhikkhus, that by protecting oneself one protects others? By the pursuit, development, and cultivation of the four establishments of mindfulness. It is in such a way that by protecting oneself one protects others.

"And how is it, bhikkhus, that by protecting others one protects oneself? By patience, harmlessness, goodwill, and sympathy. It is in such a way that by protecting others one protects oneself.- Sedaka Sutta [SN 47.19]

flaneur9 wrote:2. The word “abhidhamma” is very seldom found in the Vinaya and Suttanta (according to one authority eleven times), and when it is found it is usually paired with the term “abhivinaya.” Since there is and never was an Abhivinaya Piṭaka the context implies that “abhidhamma” here means simply “about Dhamma,” not “higher Dhamma.” In the very few cases where the term clearly refers to the philosophy of the Abhidhamma Piṭaka it is found in relatively very late canonical exegesis of older texts—for example, the Vinaya Suttavibhaṅga and the Mahāniddesa.

Well said. But don't bother trying to convince the abhidhammikas!

Here's what I think: Vinaya simply means discipline. By "abhivinaya", I believe that the Buddha was referring to a higher form of discipline, which is not about mere confirming to rules, but a higher inner discipline. So, parallel to that, "abhidhamma" should mean a higher form of dhamma, but we need not let orthodox thinking influence us to confine our understanding to some sort of mere technical-philosophy. I see it as higher practicable, realisable dhamma.

I sometimes find it funny that while Abhidhammatthasangaha enthusiasts think that they are studying ultimate reality, it is obvious that they are getting themselves involved with more concepts.

Regarding the notion/concept of Paramattha shown in Abhidhammattha Sangaha 'Comprehensive Manual of Abhidhamma', p. 25, I consider that it is very likely that the teachings of Paramattha (and its connection with Pa~n~natti 'Concept') are 'not' supported by the suttas, particularly the SN suttas (cf. Choong MK, The Fundamental Teachings of Early Buddhism, pp. 54, 92, 138 (on 'pa~n~naapeti'), 154). E.g. the five aggregates (according to the SN suttas) should be seen as they really are as 'void (without reality, rittaka), insubstantial (tucchaka), and lacking essence (asaaraka)' (SN 22.95: PTS, iii, 140-143), because they are phenomena (dhammas) arisen by causal condition ('not' by their own right as 'irreducible' realities/components of existence), having the nature (dhamma) of anicca 'impermanence', nirodha 'cessation' (SN 12.20: PTS ii, 25-27).

Just like Abhivinaya does not mean abhivinaya pitaka, same with abhidhamma.

"Life is a struggle. Life will throw curveballs at you, it will humble you, it will attempt to break you down. And just when you think things are starting to look up, life will smack you back down with ruthless indifference..."